Talk:Hatch bell foundry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Hatch bell foundry/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 16:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing this article for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    I am having some difficulty reading through the article's prose, am thinking some of it might be the phrasing - am going to give this another proofing-run to see if I can set it out a little better for the nominator. Shearonink (talk) 04:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    References all check-out. Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The above wording is more precise. Shearonink (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
    Couldn't find any copyright violations. Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
    No content disputes, no edit-wars. Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    All the rationales are good. Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Relevant and have good captions. Shearonink (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    @Nortonius: Please see recent posts in 'Discussion' section. Shearonink (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nortonius: Congratulations, it's a GA. Shearonink (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Hi Shearonink, thanks for taking this on. Just letting you know I'm here if you want to discuss problems with the article. You mention prose, I'd be happy to have a look at examples. Nortonius (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nortonius: This morning (after some sleep) I re-read it a few times and in general I think the prose is fine - a little sleep does wonders for comprehension. There are a few minor issues in the "The bellfounders" section:
  • but he noted that Thomas was recorded as a churchwarden this should probably be but he noted that a Thomas Hatch was recorded as a churchwarden
  • A bell cast in 1602 for the church at Waltham, Kent, bears Thomas Hatch's foundry stamp of a bell on a shield with the letters "T" and "H" on either side. But it also bears the legend Iosephvs Hatch Me Fecit, or "Joseph Hatch made me", in reference to Thomas Hatch's son Joseph.
Using 'But" to begin a sentence (despite what some have been taught) is perfectly fine grammatically, but I think the sentences flow a little better without that full stop of a period coupled with "But". Perhaps the sentences could be adjusted to something along the lines of:
  • A bell cast in 1602 for the church at Waltham, Kent, bears Thomas Hatch's foundry stamp of a bell on a shield with the letters "T" and "H" on either side, but the bell [making it clear that the sentence's subordinate clause is referring to the bell and not the inscription] also bears the legend Iosephvs Hatch Me Fecit, or "Joseph Hatch made me", in reference to Thomas Hatch's son Joseph.
or maybe
  • A bell cast in 1602 for the Waltham, Kent, church bears two inscriptions - Thomas Hatch's foundry stamp of a bell on a shield with the letters "T" and "H" on either side plus the legend Iosephvs Hatch Me Fecit or "Joseph Hatch made me", in reference to Thomas Hatch's son Joseph.
Frankly, I am uncertain as to what punctuation would be used with this second adjusted example - if a semi-colon or a dash would be better. Let's discuss. Shearonink (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Shearonink, yes sleep makes a huge difference! :o) I'm now at the end of a long and busy day and am in need of sleep myself, I've had a quick think about your queries and they seem perfectly reasonable to me but I'll get some sleep before I check in again tomorrow and almost certainly make changes along the lines you suggest. Cheers for now. Nortonius (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One sleep later:
  • Your first point is a good one: I've followed the source too closely and your suggestion is more accurate IMHO. Another pair of eyes often helps.
  • If William Blake can write "And did those feet ...", then I'm not afraid of starting sentences with "and" or "but"! But I'm happy to oblige here, and think your first suggestion is both fine and avoids any worry about punctuation.
I've gone ahead and made those changes, but it's also fine if you want to discuss further.[1] Nortonius (talk) 12:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a ping! Nortonius (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

I reverted this edit not because I object to an infobox especially, but because the co-ordinates given are for the churchyard at Ulcombe, clearly an unsuitable spot for a foundry; and because a precise location for the foundry is unknown. According to a source used in the article, the founders used a location by woodland called "King's Wood": there remains a suitable location for the wood today, given the settlement "Kingswood", north-west of the nucleus of Ulcombe. Further, co-ordinates for a home that belonged to the Hatch family are known, but very different, because it lies just south of the church at Broomfield, and well away from Ulcombe. I don't recall how to deal with this sort of situation, but I'd be grateful if those co-ordinates were not restored without a good explanation. Nortonius (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I’ve reinstated the infobox, removing the coord info and map info. Hope that’s ok. Jordano53 (talk) 02:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hatch_bell_foundry&oldid=1207586179"